|
The Locator posted:Isn't the 767 (i.e. KC46) a widebody though? It's about 1/3 wider than the 707 (12.x' vs 16.x')...the KC-135's fuselage isn't exactly round so a direct comparison isn't especially useful. Edit: 777 is 20'4".
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
I always thought is was a widebody, but don't work in or around aviation. I just see them on the cargo ramp at Sky Harbor wearing UPS livery, and they are noticeably larger than the UPS 757's (but much smaller than the Fed-Ex MD-11's). Didn't realize they were that much smaller than the others, although I know the 777 is freaking huge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Isn't the 767 (i.e. KC46) a widebody though? In the civilian world, the 767 walks a fine line between being a narrowbody and widebody; while it does have two aisles in a typical cabin configuration (which is how most people determine if an aircraft is a widebody or not), it is typically only 7-abreast seating, which is only one additional seat compared to a typical narrowbody airliner like a 737 or A320.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Yeah I'd call the 767 a narrow widebody just to be as confusing as possible.  Anyway, consider it in terms of fuel load: according to what I'm seeing the KC-46 will carry a useful fuel load of just under 210,000 lb - so not that much more than a KC-135 and still clearly nowhere close to the fuel payload of a KC-10 (or, presumably, a KC-777 should that ever exist)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Why hasn't Boeing pitched a KC-747
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Why hasn't Boeing pitched a KC-747 a 747-8 tanker would be too cool for the Air Force and you know it
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
the 767 is a medium-body
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
A380 tanker please 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:A380 tanker please An-225 tanker or bust 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:An-225 tanker or bust Poor choice of words there
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Why wouldn't they just buy more KC-46s? What's the use-case of a DC-10 or larger-sized plane when you've got a long range, somehwat smaller widebody coming into service already? It's actually really difficult and esoteric to explain, but the big/small tanker mix has worked out really well for the USAF. There are some missions where having a single aircraft with a large capacity is better than sending two smaller aircraft, and some situations where having smaller, more numerous tankers is better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Look like I missed both rear end chat and KC-10 chat  oh well!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's actually really difficult and esoteric to explain, but the big/small tanker mix has worked out really well for the USAF. There are some missions where having a single aircraft with a large capacity is better than sending two smaller aircraft, and some situations where having smaller, more numerous tankers is better. Huh, I wouldn't think it should be THAT hard for people to figure out... What is your "customer"? 2 bombers or a whole squad/wing of fighters. Send the fat bastard with a big tank or the little guys to refuel a whole bunch of the other little guys. yes/no/dukedumb? That's sort of the way I always reconciled it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:A380 tanker please i support this  .jpg) e: real planes have curves
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
real planes don't look hosed up  besides you guys aren't thinking this through. Stretch A380 tanker. would lose on appeal to the KC-777 anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
KC-777: boring. KC-747-8: totally dope.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
KC-&TSB: shake your booty
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
I know for a fact I've got photos somewhere of a tanker rear end (probably a 135) from an E-3 flight deck, but I can't find them. But I did find this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3BYeOVnO0Y
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I know for a fact I've got photos somewhere of a tanker rear end (probably a 135) from an E-3 flight deck, but I can't find them. Oh, I've got a bunch of KC-135 rear end. Flew over 1100 hours. Never saw a KC-10.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g42R8hemBVs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znC2OI9QKz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV3ncG5hP2k
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
I only sat up front for AR a couple of times (and I'm annoyed I can't find the pics, though yours are better) so it was probably a 135 every time. I did get a KC-10 ride though, so I've got a bunch of pictures from THAT perspective that I'll post someday. A-10s, GR-7s, a couple of flavors of Mirage. And one guy that punched flares while taking gas.  The boom operator almost poo poo himself.VV I want to see that. Godholio fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
I've also got a rare photo of both Alaska AWACS sharing close airspace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:Look like I missed both rear end chat and KC-10 chat
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Inacio posted:
That's curveist :         fe:         
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:13
|
|
|
ED: ^^^ I never liked that plane for some reason.  I'm sorry... wait... do they seriously have to pop ~11 screws every time they want to refuel the F-35?? Look at 1:49: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA_E8I3zO80 "there's GOT to be a better way?" [/infomercial]
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
karoshi posted:That's curveist : I love that plane, mostly because it doesn't look very plane-like. Plus it looks like a spaceship, so that's cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
http://gfycat.com/HatefulSpeedyDodobird
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
I was wondering when that was going to make its way over here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
Rumor is the F-117 may come back, they have been flying it lately at Nellis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:ED: ^^^ I never liked that plane for some reason. Looks like some kind of half-turn fastener to me. There probably is a better way, but that isn't the worst thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Rumor is the F-117 may come back, they have been flying it lately at Nellis. Wouldn't it take a ton of effort, time, and money to recertify aircraft that have already been decommissioned and retired? What sort of benefit would there even be to resurrecting the F-117? I feel like it wouldn't be particularly effective against any modern military- I certainly wouldn't want to take it to war against Russia or China. I suppose if they could convert it to a drone it would be good practice for learning how to combat stealth technologies, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Wouldn't it take a ton of effort, time, and money to recertify aircraft that have already been decommissioned and retired? What sort of benefit would there even be to resurrecting the F-117? I feel like it wouldn't be particularly effective against any modern military- I certainly wouldn't want to take it to war against Russia or China. They were not decommissioned so much as wrapped and mothballed. They are probably pretty close to ready in their current state and it would be easy to return them to service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I know for a fact I've got photos somewhere of a tanker rear end (probably a 135) from an E-3 flight deck, but I can't find them. But I did find this: Is that live fire at a loving airshow?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Rumor is the F-117 may come back, they have been flying it lately at Nellis. They've been flying for years as a stealthy platform for radar testing out in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Is that live fire at a loving airshow? I need to know what airshow that is. For science. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They were not decommissioned so much as wrapped and mothballed. They are probably pretty close to ready in their current state and it would be easy to return them to service. Theres only around 60 of them and they can only carry 2 bombs per sortie, why would they need to return them to service?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Theres only around 60 of them and they can only carry 2 bombs per sortie, why would they need to return them to service? RF-117?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
One pilot taking two bombs exactly where you want them is a lot more useful than twenty pilots running a whole strike package to put two bombs where you want them, is the logic. Focusing on the -117's payload capacity is missing the point. Whether or not the F-117A can still handle the radar it's likely to face in any given environment is probably classified up the rear end and certainly something I don't know so I'm gonna assume "don't fly it in the exact same flight corridor every day, you idiots" probably made it into the rulebook, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Here's a question... Why does the USAF seem to have such a hard-on for "optionally-manned," in this new round of development (NGB/LRS?) It seems like if your remote C&C is good enough that the aircraft can perform its mission without meat on board, then why go through the trouble of wasting all the weight and space in the airframe to make room for the meat, and keep it alive? If it can't be trusted for some missions, like nuclear weapons delivery, then why waste the weight and space on the UL/DL equipment for it to be an unmanned aircraft. The two design goals just seem mutually exclusive... *Looks at the F-35 program.* Oooooooooooooooh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
If we can't understand what we're doing, neither can the enemy. :usafsay:
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:00 |
|
|
Leather Bear posted:They've been flying for years as a stealthy platform for radar testing out in the desert.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 17:16
|
|
